Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Flying School Owner makes AFR rich list

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Flying School Owner makes AFR rich list

Old 16th Nov 2019, 23:05
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Hobart
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by The name is Porter View Post
Registering as an RTO has NOTHING to do with FEE-HELP. There are multiple schools with RTO status.
Correct, and SOAR https://training.gov.au/Organisation/Details/22488 wasn't using their own RTO, they were using Box Hill approval

While I dont want to comment on another flying school operator directly, I feel part of the issue with aviation traning is that there are too many regulators who dont talk to each other ... and aren't really competent in each others business

I.e., ASQA regulates Box Hill through the RTO (and would assess the legitimacy of the third party arrangement), Department of Education and Training (DET) manages the VET Student Loans ... potentially only dealing with Box Hill. CASA would talk to Soar (nothing to do with Box Hill) and I assume RAAus would be in the mix in some way shape or form ...

But no one regulator has the whole picture

Obviously I have a vested interest so I am a fan of VET Student Loans, it has expanded our business, I've put on more staff, more aircraft ... but I drive a Commodore and I still have a mortgage.

$75K certainly isn't a stupid amount to charge for a CPL if using GA ("modern") aircraft, proper staffing, proper maintennace, proper systems ... following the rules etc etc

But yes I think there could be greater transparancy, more input by the government and a process to make it easier for students to compare flying schools - ASQA is slowing going this way, but I'll believe it when i see it

Shannon
swells is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2019, 21:56
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: up there
Posts: 152
The VCAT hearing was yesterday, Wednesday 20/11. Several students v SOAR and Box Hill Institute.

Anyone at the hearing or can report on the outcome.
runway16 is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2019, 23:30
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,738
Swells:
I.e., ASQA regulates Box Hill through the RTO (and would assess the legitimacy of the third party arrangement), Department of Education and Training (DET) manages the VET Student Loans ... potentially only dealing with Box Hill. CASA would talk to Soar (nothing to do with Box Hill) and I assume RAAus would be in the mix in some way shape or form ...

But no one regulator has the whole picture
That’s a feature, not a bug.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 01:50
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Hobart
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
Swells:

Thatís a feature, not a bug.
true, but one honest intensions flying school wants to start up a remote base with the right intentions ..., and all hell breaks loose
swells is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 13:17
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 377
Originally Posted by swells View Post
$75K certainly isn't a stupid amount to charge for a CPL if using GA ("modern") aircraft, proper staffing, proper maintennace, proper systems ... following the rules etc etc
Surely the administrative costs of running a flying school have reduced since the introduction of Parts 61/141/142? Thatís certainly what CASA told the government would happen!
roundsounds is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2019, 14:56
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 4
Refund precedent ?

Today (10th December) a decision was handed down in the South Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Case #2016/2372 Crisp vs Secretary of yhe Department of Education and Bruce Hartwig Flying School. Simply put, The student, James Crisp, was awarded a refund of his VET fees paid. The reasons are spelt out in the decision of AAT deputy president Britten-Jones. I donít wish to be disrespectful to the tribunal by giving a short version of the decision, so it needs to be read as a whole. In a nutshell however, the decision appears to be formed around the evidence that the school did not meet its obligations to deliver the course which was offered nor in an appropriate and timely manner. Its not quite that simple; look up the matter on the AAT website. The AAT appear to be running 6 to 8 weeks behind in publishing its decisions. Iím sure your legal representatives will be given instant access if they ask.


Simon3 is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2019, 08:42
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 1,291
Surely the administrative costs of running a flying school have reduced since the introduction of Parts 61/141/142? Thatís certainly what CASA told the government would happen!
and Skidmark when questioned on the high cost and regulatory burden to GA said all a pvt pilot needs is a medical and flight review
YPJT is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2019, 22:19
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,182
Anyone else heard more news about what's happening with this mob? Seems like a good time to bring it up after the incident :P
Ixixly is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2020, 14:18
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,182
Posted elsewhere but figured this was the more appropriate place for it conversation on this new development to be discussed!
Ixixly is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2020, 15:06
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 61
They should be refunded everything seeing as they canít supply the course/training they originally advertised.
havick is online now  
Old 9th Jan 2020, 03:45
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 741
Originally Posted by Simon3 View Post
Today (10th December) a decision was handed down in the South Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Case #2016/2372 Crisp vs Secretary of yhe Department of Education and Bruce Hartwig Flying School. Simply put, The student, James Crisp, was awarded a refund of his VET fees paid. The reasons are spelt out in the decision of AAT deputy president Britten-Jones. I donít wish to be disrespectful to the tribunal by giving a short version of the decision, so it needs to be read as a whole. In a nutshell however, the decision appears to be formed around the evidence that the school did not meet its obligations to deliver the course which was offered nor in an appropriate and timely manner. Its not quite that simple; look up the matter on the AAT website. The AAT appear to be running 6 to 8 weeks behind in publishing its decisions. Iím sure your legal representatives will be given instant access if they ask.


the decision is actually 2016/2272 and you can access it herehttp://classic.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bi...AATA/2019/5295




kaz3g is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2020, 03:48
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 741
Originally Posted by runway16 View Post
The VCAT hearing was yesterday, Wednesday 20/11. Several students v SOAR and Box Hill Institute.

Anyone at the hearing or can report on the outcome.
anyone have a link to VCAT decision or know the case number please?

kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2020, 08:36
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 5
I agree ))
Entourage is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 02:24
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,445
Oh dear, this is not good...

https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/safet...0-00000002.pdf

If the manufacturer canít prove that the aircraft comply with the ASTM requirements, they will be grounded and unable to be used for hire or reward. In theory they can be registered under LSA experimental but youíd have to think that CASA would not allow this if they believe that the aircraft type is unsafe.

I hope nobody has bought any of those used ones as that may raise a few concerns.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 02:30
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,738
Definitely not good. Some perhaps would say criminal.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 06:43
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,053
What is criminal is CASA taking so long to get to the stage where they are now concerned.
We are concerned that contrary to the formal declarations made by the manufacturer, the aircraft may not have been adequately tested for compliance with the ASTM standard for spin recovery.
Some flight schools had stopped doing stalls in them quite some time ago. I wonder how people managed to pass a licence test in one after telling the examiner that they were forbidden to stall it. That sounds criminal to me too.
djpil is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 06:59
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 815
Formal declarations? Is that all they need?

How about having the same level of safety for all aircraft used for training instead of giving exemptions on something as arbitrary as weight?

Clare Prop is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 07:34
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,445
Originally Posted by Clare Prop View Post
Formal declarations? Is that all they need?

How about having the same level of safety for all aircraft used for training instead of giving exemptions on something as arbitrary as weight?
This was the purpose of LSA, to ďself certifyĒ and not have to pay millions for CASA to certify it, flight test it etc and therefore produce a cheaper aircraft to allow GA flying schools to buy them and to be able to level the playing field and allow them to compete with RA-Aus flying schools.

To an extent, it has worked... but at whose expense?
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 08:49
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 815
Has it worked though?
The whole RAAus thing shouldn't have been on the same playing field in the first place.
From what I've observed in the last 20 years or so, most LSAs just aren't tough enough for flying training and have sent some good operators to the wall.
I heard from a LAME that a certain Aquila, by the time it was imported and on the VH register, cost half a million bucks. Could have got 8 reliable second hand Cessnas or Pipers for that price, had a decent range and a sturdy reliable aeroplane with a steady resale value. I guess that's why some of us are still flying the dinosaurs.
Clare Prop is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 09:42
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 205
The whole system is about self compliance. A manufacturer has to build an aircraft to a set of standards and then the manufacturer needs to sign off that there aircraft meets or exceeds the said standards.

Generally, aircraft that are questionable are audited by different CAA's very quickly after they hit the market or when they have a couple of 'similar' incidents. I don't know how many aircraft CASA have audited and I know the FAA had done dozens in the category around the globe.

World CAA's are generally very happy with how self compliance works and now they are accepting the same system for part 23 aircraft where now a manufacturer can claim self compliance based on a similar set of standards.

If an aircraft manufacturer states compliance of an aircraft does not meet that standard then they are solely 100% responsible. This way grieving widow's and their lawyers go chasing the manufacturer who has stated their aircraft is compliant and meets a standard rather than chasing a CAA who accepted the aircraft based on their own, sometimes limited, testing and evaluation.

This is a system that allows aircraft to come her market much faster than would normally happen in a fully certified system which in turn makes the cost of aircraft cheaper.

If a manufacturer cheats the system and doesn't meet the approved and accepted standards then they deserve whatever they get.

This is not an RA-Aus issue, not an FAA issue, or a CASA issue because self certification is the way the industry has been instructed to proceed into the future of aviation, like it or not.
mcoates is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.